quote:

Everyone should recognize that such action hands the executive branch far too much power.

This^^^^ Just one more step in the continued growth of the "administrative state" which is already over-bearing in my opinion. We are working our way towards a nation infested with millions of petty tyrants.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:...but really...how many people does this impact? ...

Every single individual with the "birth name" "We the People..." Born 4 July 1776, and everyday thereafter.

And if ever one wanted an example of "infringe", this action and manner of execution is fitting.

And it is not the "bump stock", it is the side stepping of our constitutional method of making and changing laws that was abandoned to accomplish this ban.

I do not like "go to bed a freeman, wake up criminal", at the stroke of a pen and the whim of any man/office.

quote:

When has something like this happened at the federal level that didn't have the prior owned items grandfathered in?

Prohibition I believe.

OK...I guess I didn't fully understand the issue. Thanks for the education on the matter. I forgot about the collection of said "contraband" by the Federalis once this is passed and the precedent this is setting in "creating law". And you are correct Mr. Monkey...go to be a free man and wake up a criminal. That about says it all right there.

Burn Salve - APPLIED

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

When has something like this happened at the federal level that didn't have the prior owned items grandfathered in?

Prohibition I believe.

I'm not sure, but don't think there was any effort to confiscate privately held stores of liquor. Future selling and manufacturing were prohibited.

This will eventually be perverted to take real liberty later. That is the nature of Progressivism.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
OK...I guess I didn't fully understand the issue. Thanks for the education on the matter.

This proves something I've long believed.
Conservatives can be reasoned with and listen to logic.
Good on ya, erj_pilot.

Why the hell should Trump throw a bone to assholes who will still hate him anyway? This isn’t what I voted for.

Venezuela comes to mind...

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
Why the hell should Trump throw a bone to assholes who will still hate him anyway? This isn’t what I voted for.

The only time it would be okay to throw those clowns a bone would be if it were attached to a (pinless) hand grenade.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Let's not get silly over this, OK?

How many people posting after Para have read the action in depth and considered it's ramifications?

I managed to barely skim the Federal Register notice. I certainly haven't read the entire thing in depth and considered all aspects of it, particularly the cost analysis in the regulatory analysis supporting the rulemaking as opposed to the content of the rule.

Still in skimming I did find a couple of very interesting statements. Assuming I have enough time I'm going to do a very detailed read and post my observations here or in the gun control section of the forum.

Confiscation of legally acquired private property is unacceptable for any reason, ever. The democrats have wanted to do this sort of thing forever but it's being done now by someone elected as a republican? This is insane, what the hell is Trump thinking? Confiscation is bold, outright theft of property. What base can Trump hold onto if he orders the government to steal from it?

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

quote:

Everyone should recognize that such action hands the executive branch far too much power.

This^^^^ Just one more step in the continued growth of the "administrative state" which is already over-bearing in my opinion. We are working our way towards a nation infested with millions of petty tyrants.

Kinda like one big Condo Association.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I'm just as hardcore for my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights as the next guy/gal here and I FULLY understand the implications of this law being enacted, but really...how many people does this impact? I believe this is a "gimme" for the Trump team to "give up" bump stocks (so they can demand something meaningful from the Libtards in the future), as they have no REAL value in the firearm community. JMHO...

Firesuit - DONNED

Well for one, the idea that absent any legislation an executive branch agency can retract an 'interpretation' they've made and then demand people surrender their personal property absent any compensation. Violates two important principles in the Constitution. One is the prohibition on ex-post-facto laws. The other with depriving someone of their property absent just compensation. A REAL dangerous slippery slope to go down.

I'm wondering if this is just a tactical play by the administration just to get this issue of banning items in front of the Supreme Court so that it can get overturned and addressed for precedent that will actually protect 2A rights more completely in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I'm wondering if this is just a tactical play by the administration just to get this issue of banning items in front of the Supreme Court so that it can get overturned and addressed for precedent that will actually protect 2A rights more completely in the future.

Beat me to it. This could be a serious chess move by Trump. In the short term he placates the antis. Sure, he knows they'll still hate him, but he takes away a talking point for a while, knowing this will go to court. He can even order his solicitor general to make a half-hearted defense and he can order ATF to make enforcement a low priority. But if he's confident the court will overrule the ban, he can say, "Hey, I tried. Now you have to get Congress to act." That drags it out a few more years.

quote:

Originally posted by dwd1985:
Congratulations to the 2020 Dem party nominee on your upcoming presidency.

I love it. If this causes anyone to vote Democrat, they were never on my side to begin with.

Each and every time something we don’t agree with happens, the hand wringing cranks up
To 11. Trump played chess, and not checkers. He has outsmarted his opponents each and every time. Abandon him if you want. I ll wait and see what happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:
My biggest issue will be to see how they define bump stocks. There are zillions of other parts that that can arguably increase a rifle's rate of fire.

Have not read the entire thread yet, but what prevents them from "tweaking" this rule/law to include all semi-automatics?

What about this "seizing" for destruction of private property?

Has Trump fallen for the BS being published in the lame stream media?

If he does this, he will lose a lot of my respect for him!

Another micro-step forward by the anti's.

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
I'm wondering if this is just a tactical play by the administration just to get this issue of banning items in front of the Supreme Court so that it can get overturned and addressed for precedent that will actually protect 2A rights more completely in the future.

You watch too much "House of Cards."

What you are saying is that the White House thought: "We're going to violate the Constitution and fundamental principles of the separation of powers to save the Constitution." All by relying on this matter to properly wind its way through lower courts and the Supreme Court to the desired result.

This is not "chess" (which is a dopey metaphor in the first place). This is just a mistake. It comes from Trump not being as solid as we are on 2A questions. I also doubt he is very sensitive to separation of powers problems. I'd still rather have him than any Democrat, but that doesn't mean we can't criticize him when he makes a mistake.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

The Fifth Amendment also contains the Takings Clause, which allows the federal government to take private property for public use if the government provides "just compensation."

I note that it also says "for public use". I guess that phrase could be exaggerated to include public destruction.

I didn't see anything about compensating owners of the bump stock being compensated.